English

运筹学学报 >

2024 , Vol. 28 >Issue 3: 63 - 80

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15960/j.cnki.issn.1007-6093.2024.03.004

俞建教授八十华诞贺寿专辑

效用可转移合作博弈的Shapley值公理化研究进展综述

展开
  • 1. 西北工业大学数学与统计学院, 陕西西安 710072
徐根玖, E-mail: xugenjiu@nwpu.edu.cn

收稿日期: 2024-03-29

  网络出版日期: 2024-09-07

基金资助

国家自然科学基金(72301214);国家自然科学基金(72071159);智能博弈重点实验室创新工作站开放课题(ZBKF-24-07);智能博弈重点实验室创新工作站开放课题(ZBKF-24-11)

版权

运筹学学报编辑部, 2024, 版权所有，未经授权。
收起

Axiomatizations of the Shapley value in cooperative games with transferable utility: A review

Expand
  • 1. School of Mathematics and Statistics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710072, Shaanxi, China

Received date: 2024-03-29

  Online published: 2024-09-07

Copyright

, 2024, All rights reserved, without authorization
Fold

摘要

随着全球经济融合和国际关系日益紧密, 合作共赢已然成为当今时代的核心趋势。合作博弈理论作为研究合作问题的有力工具, 主要探讨如何在参与者之间分配合作所产生的收益。Shapley值作为合作博弈中最重要的单值解之一, 具有重要研究意义与价值。本文将主要介绍目前Shapley值公理化的研究工作, 从可加性、均衡贡献性、边际性、公平性、简约一致性、相关一致性和一些特殊的参与者性的角度, 分别归纳整理了Shapley值基于这些性质的公理化研究结论。最后对未来研究进行了展望。

关键词： 合作博弈; Shapley值; 公理化方法

本文引用格式

李文忠, 徐根玖 . 效用可转移合作博弈的Shapley值公理化研究进展综述[J]. 运筹学学报, 2024 , 28(3) : 63 -80 . DOI: 10.15960/j.cnki.issn.1007-6093.2024.03.004

Abstract

With the increasing integration of global economy and closer international relations, win-win cooperation has become a core trend in today. As a powerful tool for studying cooperative issues, cooperative game mainly explores how to allocate the benefits generated by cooperation among players. The Shapley value, as one of the most important solutions in cooperative games, has significant research significance and value. This paper mainly introduce some research on the axiomatization of the Shapley value from the point of additivity, balanced contribution, marginality, fairness, reduced consistency, associated consistency and some special player properties. We finally give a brief summary from the perspective of future research.

Key words： cooperative game; the Shapley value; axiomatization

参考文献

1 Edgeworth F Y . Mathematical Psychics: An Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Moral Sciences[M]. London: Kegan Paul, 1881.
2 Von Neumann J , Morgenstern O . Theory of Games and Economic Behavior[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944.
3 Gillies D B. Some theorems on $n$-person games [D]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953.
4 Schmeidler D . The nucleolus of a characteristic function game[J]. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 1969, 17 (6): 1163- 1170.
5 Shapley L S. A value for $n$-person games [M]//Contributions to the Theory of Games II, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953: 307-317.
6 Nowak A S , Radzik T . A solidarity value for $n$-person transferable utility games[J]. International Journal of Game Theory, 1994, 23 (1): 43- 48.
7 van den Brink R . Null or nullifying players: The difference between the Shapley value and equal division solutions[J]. Journal of Economic Theory, 2007, 136 (1): 767- 775.
8 Driessen T S H , Funaki Y . Coincidence of and collinearity between game theoretic solutions[J]. Operations Research Spektrum, 1991, 13 (1): 15- 30.
9 Moulin H . The separability axiom and equal sharing method[J]. Journal of Economic Theory, 1985, 36 (1): 120- 148.
10 Myerson R B . Conference structures and fair allocation rules[J]. International Journal of Game Theory, 1980, 9, 169- 182.
11 Pérez-Castrillo D , Wettstein D . Bidding for the surplus: A non-cooperative approach to the Shapley value[J]. Journal of Economic Theory, 2001, 100 (2): 274- 294.
12 Sun C . Bidding against a buyout: Implementing the Shapley value and the equal surplus value[J]. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 2022, 101, 102686.
13 O'Neill B . A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud[J]. Mathematical Social Sciences, 1982, 2 (4): 345- 371.
14 Maniquet F . A characterization of the Shapley value in queueing problems[J]. Journal of Economic Theory, 2003, 109 (1): 90- 103.
15 Kar A , Mitra M , Mutuswami S . On the coincidence of the prenucleolus and the Shapley value[J]. Mathematical Social Sciences, 2009, 57 (1): 16- 25.
16 Littlechild S C , Owen G . A simple expression for the Shapley value in a special case[J]. Management Science, 1973, 20 (3): 370- 372.
17 Hou D , Sun H , Sun P , et al. A note on the Shapley value for airport cost pooling game[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 2018, 108, 162- 169.
18 Ni D , Wang Y . Sharing a polluted river[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 2007, 60 (1): 176- 186.
19 Li W , Xu G , van den Brink R . Two new classes of methods to share the cost of cleaning up a polluted river[J]. Social Choice and Welfare, 2023, 61 (1): 35- 59.
20 宫豆豆, 徐根玖, 侯东爽. 双边配给问题的Shapley解及其在博物馆通票问题中的应用[J]. 运筹学学报, 2022, 26 (2): 45- 54.
21 Xu G , Wang W , Dong H . Axiomatization for the center-of-gravity of imputation set value[J]. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 2013, 439 (8): 2205- 2215.
22 Shubik M . Incentives, decentralized control, the assignment of joint costs and internal pricing[J]. Management Science, 1962, 8 (3): 325- 343.
23 Einy E , Haimanko O . Characterization of the Shapley-Shubik power index without the efficiency axiom[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 2011, 73 (2): 615- 621.
24 Casajus A . Relaxations of symmetry and the weighted Shapley values[J]. Economics Letters, 2019, 176, 75- 78.
25 Chen C T , Juang W T , Sun C J . Cross invariance, the Shapley value, and the Shapley-Shubik power index[J]. Social Choice and Welfare, 2024, 62, 397- 418.
26 Kamijo Y , Kongo T . Axiomatization of the Shapley value using the balanced cycle contributions property[J]. International Journal of Game Theory, 2010, 39, 563- 571.
27 van den Brink R , van der Laan G . Axiomatizations of the normalized Banzhaf value and the Shapley value[J]. Social Choice and Welfare, 1998, 15, 567- 582.
28 Derks J J M , Haller H H . Null players out? Linear values for games with variable supports[J]. International Game Theory Review, 1999, 1, 301- 314.
29 Kongo T . Balanced contributions based on indirect claims and the Shapley value[J]. Economics Letters, 2018, 167, 48- 50.
30 van den Brink R , Funaki Y . Axiomatizations of a class of equal surplus sharing solutions for TU-games[J]. Theory and Decision, 2009, 67, 303- 340.
31 Yokote K , Kongo T , Funaki Y . Relationally equal treatment of equals and affine combinations of values for TU games[J]. Social Choice and Welfare, 2019, 53, 197- 212.
32 Young H P . Monotonic solutions of cooperative games[J]. International Journal of Game Theory, 1985, 14, 65- 72.
33 Chun Y . A new axiomatization of the Shapley value[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 1989, 1 (2): 119- 130.
34 Casajus A, Huettner F. Marginality is equivalent to coalitional strategic equivalence [EB/OL]. (2008-02-26)[2024-03-20]. https://home.uni-leipzig.de/casajus/texts/m=cse.pdf.
35 Casajus A . Sign symmetry vs symmetry: Young's characterization of the Shapley value revisited[J]. Economics Letters, 2018, 169, 59- 62.
36 Casajus A . Second-order productivity, second-order payoffs, and the Shapley value[J]. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 2021, 304, 212- 219.
37 van den Brink R . An axiomatization of the Shapley value using a fairness property[J]. International Journal of Game Theory, 2002, 30, 309- 319.
38 Casajus A . Differential marginality, van den Brink fairness, and the Shapley value[J]. Theory and Decision, 2011, 71, 163- 174.
39 Casajus A , Yokote K . Weak differential marginality and the Shapley value[J]. Journal of Economic Theory, 2017, 167, 274- 284.
40 Casajus A . The Shapley value without efficiency and additivity[J]. Mathematical Social Sciences, 2014, 68, 1- 4.
41 Shan E , Cui Z , Lyu W . Gain-loss and new axiomatizations of the Shapley value[J]. Economics Letters, 2023, 228, 111168.
42 Shan E , Cui Z , Yu B . New characterizations of the Shapley value using weak differential marginalities[J]. Economics Letters, 2024, 238, 111685.
43 Besner M . Disjointly productive players and the Shapley value[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 2022, 133, 109- 114.
44 Hart S , Mas-Colell A . Potential, value, and consistency[J]. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1989, 589- 614.
45 Calleja P , Llerena F . Path monotonicity, consistency and axiomatizations of some weighted solutions[J]. International Journal of Game Theory, 2019, 48, 287- 310.
46 Calleja P , Llerena F . Consistency, weak fairness, and the Shapley value[J]. Mathematical Social Sciences, 2020, 105, 28- 33.
47 Oishi T , Nakayama M , Hokari T , et al. Duality and anti-duality in TU games applied to solutions, axioms, and axiomatizations[J]. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 2016, 63, 44- 53.
48 Hamiache G . Associated consistency and Shapley value[J]. International Journal of Game Theory, 2001, 30 (2): 279- 289.
49 Xu G , Driessen T S H , Sun H . Matrix analysis for associated consistency in cooperative game theory[J]. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 2008, 428 (7): 1571- 1586.
50 Hamiache G . A matrix approach to the associated consistency with an application to the Shapley value[J]. International Game Theory Review, 2010, 12 (2): 175- 187.
51 Xu G , Driessen T , Sun H . Matrix approach to dual similar associated consistency for the Shapley value[J]. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 2009, 430 (11-12): 2896- 2897.
52 Manuel C , González-Arangüena E , van den Brink R . Players indifferent to cooperate and characterizations of the Shapley value[J]. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, 2013, 77, 1- 14.
53 Besner M . Impacts of boycotts concerning the Shapley value and extensions[J]. Economics Letters, 2022, 217, 110685.
54 Casajus A . Symmetry, mutual dependence, and the weighted Shapley values[J]. Journal of Economic Theory, 2018, 178, 105- 123.
55 Casajus A . Weakly balanced contributions and the weighted Shapley values[J]. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 2021, 94, 102459.
56 Béal S , Ferrières S , Rémila E , et al. The proportional Shapley value and applications[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 2018, 108, 93- 112.
57 Besner M . Axiomatizations of the proportional Shapley value[J]. Theory and Decision, 2019, 86 (2): 161- 183.
58 Casajus A , Huettner F . Null players, solidarity, and the egalitarian Shapley values[J]. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 2013, 49 (1): 58- 61.
59 Choudhury D , Borkotokey S , Kumar R , et al. The Egalitarian Shapley value: A generalization based on coalition sizes[J]. Annals of Operations Research, 2021, 301, 55- 63.
60 Kuipers J , Mosquera M A , Zarzuelo J M . Sharing costs in highways: A game theoretic approach[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2013, 228 (1): 158- 168.
61 Shapley L S , Shubik M . A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system[J]. American Political Science Review, 1954, 48 (3): 787- 792.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉